We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.

Administrative regulation dates to beginnings of the Republic, so apparently the founders didn't see a contradiction between such regulation and the constitution they wrote.

Among the first administrative laws was the Pension Act of 1803 (2 Statute 242), whereby Congress delegated to the Secretary of War the power to approve invalid veteran pension claims, as vested in the Office of the Commissioner of Pensions.

Z, I believe Hamburger's book is talking about administrative rules and regulations such as those proposed in the Federal Register and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, not duly enacted laws of Congress codified in the United States Code.

BillH: I believe Hamburger's book is talking about administrative rules and regulations such as those proposed in the Federal Register and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, not duly enacted laws of Congress codified in the United States Code.

We haven't read the book, so perhaps you could outline the argument. In any case, the Office of the Commissioner of Pensions implemented rules for how to determine whether a person was eligible for a pension, and who was not. Interestingly, carbon paper, as in "file it in triplicate", was invented in 1806.

sometimes specific administrative law is lawful, sometimes it isn't. as a general rule, congress does have the constitutional power to set up administrative agencies, which do have the constitutional power to promulgate rules and set up administrative law courts, both of which are subject to congress (via the statute that establishes them) and to the judiciary, through review of administrative law decision).

this year the DC court of appeals heard a challenge to the Securities and Exchange Commission and held agency and its processes were constitutional. Lucia v SEC No. No. 15-1345 (August 2016). there is a detailed analysis of the constitutional challenge.

while many commenters on forums like this seem to disagree with the authority of federal courts to interpret the federal constitution, that issue was laid to rest over 200 years ago in Marbury v Madison.

since the court's opinion is the only one that counts, suck it, Hamburger.

Wilbur Hassenfus: Therefore, inductively, the founders meant for the Constitution to be have no concrete meaning at all?

The Constitution gives Congress the power to set up agencies of the government that then operate within the confines of the legislation. They can revoke or modify this power at any time. To think that Congress would have to approve each and every application for a military pension just doesn't make sense.

Scandals surround Clinton´s gatekeeper at State ... FBI notes released Monday indicated that Kennedy offered a trade with the FBI

False, which anyone who had read the FBI reports would have been able to determine, including the right-wing press, if they were so inclined — but they weren't, of course.

FBI Notes: "Not yet knowing the e-mail's content, {Brian McCauley} told KENNEDY he would look into the e-mail matter if KENNEDY would provide authority concerning the FBI's request to increase its personnel in Iraq."

"A former F.B.I. official at the center of the latest controversy over Hillary Clinton’s private emails acknowledged on Tuesday that an offer to swap favors with a State Department counterpart on an email classification issue had originated with him — until he realized the deal involved Mrs. Clinton and the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya."

This is the problem with relying on the right-wing echochamber, people who have no desire to find the truth, but only to reach a predetermined conclusion. The original mistruth will continue to echo for months or even years.

DrTorch: You have evidence that the "right wing echochamber" has no interest in finding the truth?

We just provided evidence. A reading of the FBI file would have revealed that it was the FBI agent who had proposed the quid pro quo. We can lead you to knowledge, but we can't make you click the links.

Re: Martin Luther King, Pussy Grabber
Re: The Casting Call For Another Anita Hill
Re: And now there is this Big Story

The only thing interesting about the "Big Story" is that Hillary had to be setup with dates - but that's not a surprise since her personality is so toxic.

The rest is the usual display of hypocrisy out the the left and the media. Neither are capable of embarrassment because neither have morals. The Ted Kennedy/Kopechne story is maybe the most blatant, but my, more recent, favorite is the story of Gerry Studds and Mark Foley:

In 1983, Democrat Congrescritter Gerry Studds was censured by the house for diddling seventeen year old pages. But the "good" people from Massachusetts were so progressive, even in 1983, that they re-elected him to his house seat for another seven terms - till 1997. He finally died in 2006.

Also, in 2006, it became known that Republican Mark Foley from Florida had sent suggestive emails to an underage page. For this, he was hounded by Democrats and the media for being a moral reprobate and unfit for office. Many of those Democrats went to Studds' funeral and praised him for his service and courage (forgive me, I'm not seeing the equivalence between sending emails and actually diddling). The media lionized him for not buckling under to Republicans calling for his resignation.

The icing on the cake is that in 1983, when Congress was deciding what to do with Studds, there was a Republican, Dan Crane, who was also considered for disciplinary action for the same reason. Newt Gingrich demanded that they both be expelled. At the time, the Republicans were in the minority so it would have hurt them more.

There is no use in calling out a Democrat for any moral infraction or hypocrisy.

In fact, Gerry Studds was censured by a supermajority of the House. However, his constituents didn't consider a consensual relationship to be such an issue. As for Foley, most of the pressure to resign was from Republicans.

Christopher B: Even back in in 1983 the degree of consent present in a sexual relationship where one of the participants has significant formal power over the other in a workplace setting was considered suspect.

Agreed. Though the person involved said that he felt no such pressure, a supermajority of the House found it worthy of censure.

Z: In fact, Gerry Studds was censured by a supermajority of the House.

I'm SO impressed! A Congresscritter breaks the law and most of his colleagues vote to censure him. The did not vote to expel him which is what they should have done. BTW, how many Democrats did not vote to censure?

Z: However, his constituents didn't consider a consensual relationship to be such an issue.

Exactly to my point. Democrats don't really care about protecting minors from sexual predators. That is how the left, especially feminists, defined a sexual relationship between a powerful person and one under his power.

Z: As for Foley, most of the pressure to resign was from Republicans.

Republicans did express outrage and that goes to their intellectual and moral integrity, but there were powerful Democrats including John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi, and others who attacked Foley and then attended Studds' funeral and eulogized him in the media. Of course the media eulogized him, too.

In any case, you've only proved my point about which side is the more morally and intellectually honest. Thank you.

I stand corrected. The age of consent in both Massachusetts and DC are 16 and presumably was in 1983. That would mean it was 16 in 2006, too. Why the outrage about Foley's emails from Kerry, Pelosi, et al?

In addition, views concerning sexual harassment have evolved. There's also the question of hypocrisy, wherein Republicans made a big issue out of Bill Clinton's affairs while engaging in similar behavior.

Wouldn't King's immoral and illegal acts require that honest moral people demand that his name be removed from city streets and his holiday eliminated?
Oh, wait! If they don't name the street MLK blvd how will I know which side of town is unsafe. Never mind.

IF you mean people making that decision based on the facts. But I am daily reminded that the mainstream media is pushing the narrative that Trump is the next Hitler, or the spawn of the devil, or all of the above. So before you can rationally cast the "down the with ruling party" vote you need to ignore the media at least 10 times a day.

I am not blind to Trump's faults. He is no savior in his merits. But he is no Hillary, either. And he won't be half as bad for the country as Hillary.

If I were his campaign advisors, I would say tonight that we can trust Trump not to be corrupted in the White House. Clearly, if he so much as sneezes, the media will accuse him of spreading germ warfare, whereas the same media does everything it can to ignore Hillary's felonies and deadly stumbles. So Trump is clearly going to be the choice for anyone wanting to elect the cleaner candidate for the next four years.

E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications.

To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly.Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: